Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S GIANI COMMISSION AGENT & ANR versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/s Giani Commission Agent & Anr v. State of Punjab & Ors - CWP-9743-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 3596 (4 July 2006)

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.9743 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION: July 4, 2006

M/s Giani Commission Agent and another

....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA

PRESENT: Shri V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioners.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

Shri V.K.Sandhir, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, at the outset, informs the Court that the petitioners are identically situated as the petitioners in CWP No.17313 of 2004 which was decided alongwith other matters by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated April 20,2006 (Annexure P.4). Shri Sandhir further informs the Court that the respondent Board is not accepting the representation of the petitioners on the ground that they had not approached the Court.

In view of the aforesaid fact, we dispose of the present petition with a liberty to the petitioners to file individual representations within a period of two months from today staking their claim for the allotment of sties in the New Anaj Mandi. In the aforesaid representations, the petitioners would be required to give all such details which show that they are eligible for allotment of sites in the New Anaj Mandi as per the rules. The petitioners shall also be required to append all such material which may be relevant to prove the facts. A copy of any such judgment of this Court or the Apex Court, which is relevant for consideration, would be appended alongwith the representation.

If any such representation is made to the Administrator, New Mandi Township, State of Punjab (respondent No.4), then the aforesaid respondent shall consider the claim of each of the petitioners and shall take appropriate decision by passing a detailed speaking order, within a period of four months thereafter.

Till the matter is finally decided by the respondents, the petitioners would be at liberty to carry on their business in the old sites.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

July 4, 2006 (H.S. Bhalla)

KD Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.